Bob Lutz has never been one to back down from a fight. The former Marine has served at a number of car companies over the decades including General Motors, BMW, Ford, and Chrysler. Most recently, Lutz served at GM's Vice Chairman for Special Advisor Design and Global Product Development.

When it comes to hardcore "car guys" in the auto industry, there aren't many as rabid as Lutz. In recent years, Lutz is responsible for spearheading the development of enthusiast-oriented vehicles like the fifth-generation Chevrolet Camaro, Pontiac G8, fourth generation Pontiac GTO, Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky, and the upcoming Cadillac Converj (now called the ELR).

One of Lutz's most famous "babies", however, has been the Chevrolet Volt. He has been an ardent supporter of the plug-in hybrid, so it should come as no surprise that Lutz is coming to the Volt's defense after a barrage of negative press has rained down on it.

[Source: Patrick Arena/VW Vortex]

Lutz, writing in a column for Forbes, went straight after those that have been most critical of the Volt. He rattled off six “truths” about the vehicle including the fact that the Volt was conceived before GM's federal bailout and that no Volt has caught fire on public roads during an accident. Lutz also asserted that 278,000 gasoline-engined vehicles caught fire between 2003 and 2007, but no one seemed to launch an attack campaign against those vehicles.

But Lutz saved his harshest criticism for the "right-wing media" which has gone after the Volt with many a hollow-point bullet:

But the Oscar for totally irresponsible journalism has to go to The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News, with, as its key guest, Lou Dobbs. Amid much jocular yukking, the Volt was depicted as a typical federal failure. In attempting to explain why Chevy has sold fewer than 8,000 Volts, Dobbs states, flatly, “It doesn’t work.” He elaborates, “It doesn’t go fast and go far on electricity. What happens is it catches fire."

Lutz then went on to try to clear up any confusion about who enabled the $7,500 tax credit that has been another sore point for people upset over the very existence of the Volt:

To top it off, these two media pros lamented the fact that the same government that had forced GM to produce the Volt was now extending $7,500 tax credits towards its purchase, thus squandering even more of “our taxpayer” dollars on this failed Socialist-collectivist flop. Truth? The $7,500 tax credit was enacted under the Bush administration!

Lutz’s column comes just days after GM CEO Dan Akerson testified before Congress to defend the Volt's safety record. "The Volt is safe. It's a marvelous machine. It represents so much of what is right at GM and, frankly, American ingenuity and manufacturing," said Akerson in his testimony last week. "The Volt seems, perhaps unfairly, to have become a surrogate for some to offer broader commentary on General Motors' business prospects and administration policy."

This is typical of Fox and their viewers. They spew out talking points without much research as if they are facts. So they lied about the tax break and had no clue about when it catches fire. Typical Republicans. Not all, but most fall in this group.

A Republican will take an idea and look at it from a grade school point of view and ask why this and that but never care to get an answer or clarify their opinion with real facts. I've followed politics for a while, and I can spot a Republican by how they evade questions like they wrote books on misdirection.

You can call me an elitist or whatever word of the day Fox gives you, but it is the bleeding truth.

Well it's taken a while to understand the immense scope of their claim, but now I get it. Faux is in fact "fair and balanced." It accomplishes this monumental task by putting together the immensity of all left wing b/s delivered on the billions of bleeding heart socialist channels and creating one massive piece of right wing b/s to completely offset it.

LOL oh yeah, cause you know, nobody else takes people out of context at all. Certainly not the mainstream left media, who invented that tactic decades before Fox News was created. Come on, you know that happened DAILY when Bush was in office.

I think it was pretty stupid of them to use that part of Obama's statement. When right before it he handed them a real gem in that he blatantly lied when he said the Bush tax cuts increased taxes for "all" American's. That's a lie and they should have ran with it.

quote: That other channels decided to pick it up as well? Really, some of these other channels simply could not have enough news to stay in business if not for Faux.

There isn't enough news out there to keep a 24/7 News network busy. I think one of the worst things that's happened to TV news in general is the 24 hour platform. Because they have to create so much content, recycle, or focus on self-creating news stories.

But blaming Fox for this? Fox Only got started in 1996 Yash. This practice had been going on for decades before.

But I know. It's easier to attack Fox than to ask ourselves why the Volt just isn't working for the consumer. GM didn't bring the EV1 to market because they knew this would happen. Who do you guys blame when the Volt gets the axe?

Yes but it's just not accurate to say "The last guy raised your taxes". That's rhetoric. It's JUST as accurate to say Obama "raised" our taxes because of the massive debt he's put us in that will have to be addressed at some point in the future. Using your logic.

It's understood that when you say "raised taxes" you mean the current tax rate. Not some point in the future that may or may not happen.

If that Youtube clip is accurate and unedited, Fox was clearly being dishonest by taking Obama's speech out of context. But if Yash is saying Fox isn't balanced by showing a half truth, than I'm saying that NOBODY is. Because every single network has been doing that since before I was born.

Yash seems to think "Fair and balanced" means you can't ever take the Conservative view on something. And that's just absurd. From what I can tell Fox is the most balanced when it comes to allowing the other side to give their opinion. Fox routinely gets real Democrats to give their point of view on issues. When's the last time MSNBC and the rest had anything other than a token Republican who's job was to sit there and get barraged by one-sided attacks?

The Economist is not a news network, or even a newspaper, with a significant market share in America. Or any other country. I don't know why you keep bringing it up when the topic of discussion is Fox News.

And I'm suffering from years of drug abuse now? You usually throw the first low blow, but that one doesn't even make sense. So I must be on crack to be a Conservative? Who's being fair and balanced now.

Nnnnnnhhh. And there goes our tacky-buzzer. Will have to call you out on that one. Good grief, even Wikipedia labels them as progressive adherents of economic Liberalism, holding to Keynesian principles when it suits them. Hardly conservative.

That would be your oppinion Kurz, but the fact is all media is biased. Fox has cornered their market with a loyal following, something no liberal media has yet achieved. Because of this, it appears liberal media is further biased because there are more oppinions from more sources.

In reality it is important to hear all sides, however extreme they are. Jason Mick writes some very conservative-feeling oppinions (my perspective) but I still read, and agree with them quite often when I have traditionally been quite liberal.

Back on topic, I agree with Lutz. GM is attacked far too often. Yes they took a bailout, but so did Chrysler, and they have little chance of long-term survival. GM is actually selling cars (at a profit) and have been slowly paying back government loans. I'm a Ford guy but I wouldn't hesitate to put my kids in a Chevy Cruze or Chevy Sonic, both very attractive, safe cars. Without government bailout, these cars would never have come to market, and chances are GM will pay back their loan, unlike wallstreet who is still completely unwilling to work with home owners to refinance upside-down mortgages and still reaps record earnings at our expense.

We didn't HAVE to bail GM out, but odds are if we didn't, it would have sent shockwaves through the industry. Delphi, Bosch, Delco, Good Year, all heavily dependant on or owned by GM, would have been nearly shuttered if the worlds second-largest (at the time) auto manufacture disappeared. Nobody had the resources to purchase these supply chains. Imagine if Toyota had transitioned exclusively to Denso when the 2011 tsunami literally shut down Denso factories for months. Without Delco to backup Toyota for fuel injectors, solenoids and motors, Toyota would have been more screwed than they already were. Ford, Toyota and Volkswagen all depend on these suppliers for a variety of parts. The world-wide automotive industry would have suffered if GM were not bailed out, there is no arguement, unlike wether or not the federal wall street bailout had any effect whatsoever. The only arguement is why they haven't paid us back yet, and that has a lot to do with wall street not privatizing their loan with the government.

quote: Fox has cornered their market with a loyal following, something no liberal media has yet achieved.

Of course because they're all competing for the same market share. The far left news market. Fox is the most balanced and offers a clear contrast to what EVERY OTHER network is doing. And if that means going to the right sometimes it's only seen as such a big issue because the other networks NEVER go to the right on anything ever.

Why do you think Fox's ratings are so big? Either the majority of this country is center-right. Or the other networks are too left leaning. It's probably a combination of both. I'm sure I could dig up a poll that would have the answer, but it would probably fall on deaf ears here.

I think these people have been in Liberal land so long, and been fed it so much on a daily basis, they can't really recognize Liberal bias when they see it. I once heard MSNBC's Chris Matthews call the Washington Post a "conservative" newspaper. Really Chris?? Conservative!

That just goes to show when you spend that much time on the left, ANYTHING that conflicts with your world view must be "far-right". You really lose the ability to tell one from the other objectively.

And honestly, this is America. Since when did being "right wing" become a bad thing? Oh yeah, since the Liberals in charge of print and broadcast media said so.

Well, to be honest, George W Bush didn't do the republican party any favors in the same way Bill Clinton didn't do the democratic party any favors, but GW's effects are "fresh." It'd be nice to have a real president in my lifetime (I'm 30.)

No arguement with your statement of the media, but you have to admit Fox takes a brute, tactless approach (think Glen Beck) every now and then that really opens up the doors to the liberal media (John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Paul Krugman.) They are so easy to slander because they are so big, and there is a liberal audience willing to listen. Since there are so many 'small' liberal media outlets, Fox rarely attacks them on a 1:1 basis, and instead has to talk about (relevent topics) the president, government malfunction, biased studies, etc. And that's why I still watch Fox. NPR, CNN and Fox all often have such over the top stories I have to turn them off.

It's really out of control. Everything is. Because as you said, people tune themselves to only hear what they want to hear (probably because of the environment they were raised in) and don't bother challenging what they listen too.

quote: Well, to be honest, George W Bush didn't do the republican party any favors

You know what, he sure as hell didn't. Because Bush is somehow still thought of by people as a Conservative, when he clearly wasn't. And that hurts the Republican party and Conservatives when we have to constantly be compared to someone who was, frankly, a moderate President who was left leaning on a lot of issues. And we get put in uncomfortable positions where we end up defending Bush because our party is being attacked.

I think if 911 had never happened, we would be talking about his administration in a completely different light perhaps. But as of right now today, Bush probably hurt our party more than helped. Don't get me wrong, Democrats and Liberals are always going to hate us no matter what. It's just that Bush provided SO much ammo to them while also alienating those of us who wanted a true Conservative in the White House.

Or it could be that, much like Lincoln was, he was thrust into an impossibly perilous situation and it's going to take the next 40+ years to come to a historical consensus. The wounds might be a bit too fresh right now, so to speak.

GWB was exactly what the left wanted. Someone who would kinda do what they wanted, and still made enough mistakes in order to scapegoat the party he associated with. The damage done to the conservative movement isn't fully realized yet, and I think it will come to fruition this election cycle. Once they can no longer claim, "BUSH DID IT AND HE WAS 'CONSERVATIVE' BLAH BLAH BLAH" with spending, Medicare Part B, No Child Left Behind etc., then real inroads can be made against the current establishment.

quote: And honestly, this is America. Since when did being "right wing" become a bad thing? Oh yeah, since the Liberals in charge of print and broadcast media said so.

From what I understand being "right wing" means you believe in the Constitution as it was written and that the government should have as little power as possible. If that is so then our Founding Fathers must have been "right wing" too. If so then I guess that is where I fall also. But honestly I prefer to take news from as many sources as possible and intelligently process the information to try and figure out what the truth really is.

Exactly, and this is why Conservatives and anything "right wing" is attacked by the mainstream media and libs in general. Liberals want the largest government possible because that's the only way their ideal Liberal utopia can be made a reality. That pesky document barring such things, the Constitution, is truly the nemesis of the Democratic party and the "progressive" movement. After all, what party has spent more time marginalizing the Constitution since the end of the Civil War than the Democrats?

quote: But honestly I prefer to take news from as many sources as possible and intelligently process the information to try and figure out what the truth really is.

That's the best approach. I know it shocks people when I say I don't watch Fox News. I don't like "news" in general. When I need to inform myself on something, the Internet is the best source because it's easy to get enough info from a variety of sources to make an educated opinion.

I feel compelled, however, to defend Fox News. Because without them there would truly be a nearly world-wide global monopoly on the news by Liberal organizations. Also if it angers Liberals because it doesn't conform to their twisted world view, it MUST be a good thing.

"And honestly, this is America. Since when did being "right wing" become a bad thing? Oh yeah, since the Liberals in charge of print and broadcast media said so."

Since the start of the Revolutionary war. The idea that individuals had rights and weren't just the subjects of the elite were very liberal ideas at the time. Republicans always talk about freedom but what they mean is for Corporation to have freedom to do whatever they want. Republicans seem to be the ones always wanting to pass laws to restrict personal freedoms.

quote: Republicans seem to be the ones always wanting to pass laws to restrict personal freedoms.

I think you aren't being intellectually honest. BOTH parties seem to exist, in my opinion, for the sole purpose of growing government and restricting freedoms. The only difference is WHICH freedoms they vote to restrict. And as Reclaimer has pointed out, there's a lot of overlap between the two parties (Patriot Act is an example).

Can you really not think of any individual liberties that the left wants to restrict?

quote: Republicans always talk about freedom but what they mean is for Corporation to have freedom to do whatever they want.

Ok, so you're saying that the left wants to limit the freedoms that corporations have? How is that a good thing? What freedoms should individuals have that corporations shouldn't be allowed (since corporations are made up of regular people like you and me after all)?

quote: Ok, so you're saying that the left wants to limit the freedoms that corporations have? How is that a good thing? What freedoms should individuals have that corporations shouldn't be allowed (since corporations are made up of regular people like you and me after all)?

Oh man you said it now. Don't you know Daily Tech is home to the most rabid anti-Corporation lackeys this side of MoveOn.org?? Good luck my friend. I'll do what I can for ya...you'll need this.

Add to it Ford was begging the Gvmnt to prevent GM and Chrysler bankruptcy.. Why? Because if the other 2 had gone bankrupt, the suppliers would likely default the payments to Ford disrupting Ford's supply chain.

Keeping GM and Chrysler alive means that Ford is much further away from doing anything that could possibly be misconstrued as anti-trust. Fighting anti-trust accusations is very expensive in court, whether they are real or Faux accusations.

quote: Without government bailout, these cars would never have come to market, and chances are GM will pay back their loan, unlike Wallstreet who is still completely unwilling to work with home owners to refinance upside-down mortgages and still reaps record earnings at our expense.

That is key right there, people say that Volt was stupid to release and it was totally funded by the government bailout, Which was announced Dec 19th, 2008, so that was before Obama took office in January of 2009! By then GM had already spent Million on the Volt/Converj project, by the time of the bailout, GM would have lost more money by scrapping the program than by releasing a flop.

Second, the EV market is growing and will continue to grow, number may not be very high as far as sales but they do sell all they make, by Volt 2.0 the Volt will be a very strong competitor to the Prius(s).

Third GM didn't need bailed out from a cash and poor management situation, GM needed bailed out of its Union situation, you look at Automotive Union pay-rates vs. inflation, and those Union have demanded higher and higher wages to the point of near if not hyperinflation, hyperinflation cannot be sustained, something had to be done and the loss of thousands of Auto manufacturer jobs, along with thousands of auto supplier jobs along with thousands of natural resource jobs, added to the thousands of dealership level jobs, adding in the Hundred of thousands of service industry jobs and well if you don't get the idea yet you never will.I support GM, still sore about cancelling the Firebird, but still support them and all the men and women who have to suffer thru the idiots that treat GM and its employees like its a political whipping boy.

quote: Third GM didn't need bailed out from a cash and poor management situation, GM needed bailed out of its Union situation, you look at Automotive Union pay-rates vs. inflation, and those Union have demanded higher and higher wages to the point of near if not hyperinflation, hyperinflation cannot be sustained, something had to be done and the loss of thousands of Auto manufacturer jobs, along with thousands of auto supplier jobs along with thousands of natural resource jobs, added to the thousands of dealership level jobs, adding in the Hundred of thousands of service industry jobs and well if you don't get the idea yet you never will.

The bailout didn't fix this problem. In fact Obama made it worse. Unions are a huge contributor to Democrat's in general. But Obama especially got huge amounts of campaign contributions from the UAW and other Unions. He actually gave the UAW shares of GM, a move which I must point out, is actually illegal.

This is why people like me are so angry about GM, the Volt, the whole thing. We see our President using billions of dollars of public money to pay back the unions blatantly, engage in crony capitalism, everything. The whole thing stinks of corruption and greed and selfishness. It's everything that's wrong with politics and big government.

The UAW is not only stronger than before, but they have an actual leadership stake in GM itself! He bailed out the pension plan that was killing GM, like you said. He gave them shares. He put union members on GM's board of directors for god sakes. Do you realize what that means? He handed GM to the unions. Things will never change for the better now.

And before any of you people say "Hey, Obama himself didn't do all that". Remember his "Car Czar"? That's right. Someone appointed by Obama, unanswerable to everyone - even Congress - completely above the law carrying out Obama's expressed orders. Obama DID do all those things.

What happens when the money runs out and GM is facing the same union-driven problem years down the road? They had a real chance to restructure.

quote: Second, the EV market is growing and will continue to grow, number may not be very high as far as sales but they do sell all they make, by Volt 2.0 the Volt will be a very strong competitor to the Prius(s).

Provided Obama keeps the price of gas and EV subsidies high as hell?

I say enough of the Government picking winners. If the EV market grows, let it grow on it's own. Let Capitalism play out as it should. Purposefully manipulating markets and inflating the cost of gas is NOT the way to do it.

In closing, the Obama administration has a clear and present vested interest in the success of the Volt. A car. Is this something you honestly feel should be the role of our government and President?

How did Obama make this worse when "Obama" was not in office in December 2008?

quote: He actually gave the UAW shares of GM, a move which I must point out, is actually illegal.

It has been almost 2 years since the restructure, if this was illegal, name and link the court case.

quote: The UAW is not only stronger than before, but they have an actual leadership stake in GM itself! He bailed out the pension plan that was killing GM, like you said. He gave them shares. He put union members on GM's board of directors for god sakes. Do you realize what that means? He handed GM to the unions. Things will never change for the better now.

I don't see the UAW owning part of GM as a bad thing. The UAW had GM by the "Balls" before, now they have a vested interest in what benefits GM as a whole; whereas, before UAW only cared about benefiting UAW.

Don't get me wrong I am not Pro-Union, I think when founded they were very useful in balancing power between the capitalist giants and individual workers, but now laws do most of that for us. Unions are antiquated now.

As for the Auto Czar, he does answer to the president, his sole purpose was to ensure that the minute details of allocating the bailout money authorized by H.W. Bush did not steal too much of Obama's time and focus.

A lot of media sensationalizes even the simplest topics with unneccessary complexity and moot information. This approach might appear intelligent, but anyone who can read between the lines will know its just an "inception" scripted story; that is, too much information.

That's true. I think a lot of the reason Liberals are made out to be "smarter" than Conservatives is that it truly takes a brilliant intellect to make such terrible ideas and theories sound like a good idea to average people.

LOL Retro, you have a gift. This was subtle humor right? Because you just posted something that uses grade school logic to attack "the right" on having a grade school point of view.

Bravo man :D

Seriously now, I would say the fault in the "both sides do it" point of view is that it assumes a morale relativism. If both sides can't be wrong, that means both can never be right. And visa versa.

Conservatism, the "right", what have you isn't just some point of view. In the larger context of politics and the impact on the country, it absolutely is the CORRECT point of view. It's what this country was founded on.

Liberals don't like hearing this because they view America as a critically flawed venture that breeds inequalities, prejudices, and has a Constitution which was written to keep "rich white men" in power. So we need to take as much freedom, personal responsibility, and wealth out of the people's hands and use it equally and favorably distribute it to fix these issues. Now, obviously, we know this cannot be the correct point of view. It's just not.

"Seriously now, I would say the fault in the "both sides do it" point of view is that it assumes a morale relativism. If both sides can't be wrong, that means both can never be right. And visa versa."

Can you see it ever working out with the current left vs. right, arguing and getting nowhere mentality? Both sides are wrong.

"Conservatism, the "right", what have you isn't just some point of view. In the larger context of politics and the impact on the country, it absolutely is the CORRECT point of view. It's what this country was founded on."

Who are you to say what is "correct" ? There are many opionions, I think we both agree our country is in a bad way right now, well, the reps have had most of the control in recent history, so how "correct can it be?

Also, this country was not founded by conservatives. This country was founded by people getting on boats and sailing the hell away from the conservatives of their day (The king of englands etc.)

You really needed to bring it, and you didn't. Really weak reply. Republicans might have been in power, but that doesn't mean they were CONSERVATIVE Republicans. And we could debate all day long over which party is responsible for what, regardless of voting "power".

Modern-day Conservatives embrace the ideology of our Founders. I didn't say America was settled by modern day Conservatives. Talk about grade school logic! It seems to be all you have.

Liberals, on the other hand, believe in NONE of our founding principles or the Constitution in general.

quote: Who are you to say what is "correct" ?

Who are you to say I'm not? I'll err on the side of liberty and personal freedom and smaller government.

"Republicans might have been in power, but that doesn't mean they were CONSERVATIVE Republicans."

OK, so when your conservative party fails miserably, then the claim is "they weren't REAL conservatives" LOL... OK. thanks for the laugh. Its a cop-out answer and a great way to remove all responsibility for actions. LOL.

"Liberals, on the other hand, believe in NONE of our founding principles or the Constitution in general."

Now you are generalizing and totally incorrect. Just ridiculous. Just because the liberal half of the USA disagrees with you doesn't at all mean they don't believe in the constitution. That is a total load of crap.

"You really needed to bring it, and you didn't. Really weak reply."

Right back at ya. Your arguments are totally baseless, and DONT assume to think you know what "liberals" think about the constitution, because you have no clue.

"Who are you to say I'm not?"

I am no-one to say that... But I didn't make the claimdid I? You came out and said conservatism is the "correct" way to govern. I pointed out that reps have had all the power in the modern ERA and have made a mess. You have no answer for that other than "oh, well, they werent REAL conservatives. If the reps aren't the conservative party who the hell is?

I am not touting the greatness of the dems by any means, but you really have to get over this "blame everything that is wrong in this country on liberals" thing. Its just narrow, one sided, ill-though out and plain wrong.

You wouldn't have devoted all this time if you weren't highly invested in defending Liberalism.

Anyway you're about as annoying to talk to as Yash, you're on ignore too. Come back when you grow up, start paying taxes, and have more of a clue about realities instead of just idealistic platitudes.

quote: I pointed out that reps have had all the power in the modern ERA and have made a mess.

Repeating the same over-simplistic broad-stroked half truth doesn't make it relevant for this discussion. If you spent five minutes studying how Washington works, you would see "power" comes down to more than simply party votes. And you would see what party REALLY plays the partisan games and refuses to work with the other side.

Anyway enjoy living in Candy Land with the rest of your Liberal morons.

quote: You came out and said conservatism is the "correct" way to govern.

I guess thats how it is... Attack the librals at all cost, its ALL their fault, its all their fault!!! . Then, when confronted with irreputiatable logic (/Palin LOL),like the fact that the reps have had nearly all the power in the past 30 years, run like a coward and insult me. He cant admit he is wrong and that the reps screwed this pooch. Clearly you and I must be nutty liberals and pay no taxes.

I live in AZ, am married with 2 kids, one going to ASU now, and own 2 homes, but clearly, I pay no taxes and am immature because I dont blame all our issues on the liberals.

quote: I live in AZ, am married with 2 kids, one going to ASU now, and own 2 homes, but clearly, I pay no taxes and am immature because I dont blame all our issues on the liberals.

No it's actually worst than I thought. You're just a straight up fucking idiot to have that life experience, living in Arizona, and still defend Liberalism.

I really hope you didn't think this discussion was about saying "everything" isn't the Liberals fault. In that case I'll be REALLY pissed for you wasting my time. Because you can't find me saying that here at all. Not once.

This is why a true conversation cannot be had with you. I am NOT defending liberalism. I am simply stating you cant blame it ALL on the liberals, when the reps have had all the power. You are so far to one side you cant even comprehend someone that disagrees with you and consider for just a minute that they arent a liberal nutjob. THINK about that statement for a minute. Where did I defend liberalism? All I ever do is point out how one sided and incorrect you are for blaming everything on the libs.

"I really hope you didn't think this discussion was about saying "everything" isn't the Liberals fault. In that case I'll be REALLY pissed for you wasting my time. Because you can't find me saying that here at all. Not once. "

Lets not mince words here reclaimer. Your name is littered all over any and every political article and Anandtech/Dailytech for YEARS blaming everything on the liberals. That's all you do. YOu cant fathom for a minute just maybe your side made most of the bad choices here. Not even a possibility is it. Its as if All Presidential legislation happened under Clinton, and in since Jan 2007 in Congress. Seriously, get some perspective.

If you truly arent going to "ignore" me, at least come up with a decent argument, becasue as of now you are failing.

Apple does a lot of crappy things that are very bashable. From the bold face lies and skewed benchmarks of the 90's and early 2000's to todays frivolous lawsuits claiming other companies are copying Apple's copied tech... But that's another thread.

Funny story!!Google Whig party and look at the wiki for that party, replace Whig with modern Republican, newspapers with FOX and names for the person modern equivalent position IE... Obama for Jackson, Gingrich for Clay, and you have the same story we do now!History repeats itself!

Reclaimer, you forget that the earliest party was the democrat-republican, and they focus on almost opposite what we consider to be the modern Republican Point of View

The left are the grade school mentality....instead of debating issues they just call you a racist or show ads pushing old ladies over cliffs. Heck even Newsweek a magazine that used to be respected resorts to calling people that don't like Obama's policies "dumb".

Bigots, fools and cynics cherry-pick facts, inventing them when not found, to support their world views. Done by anyone, right or left, who prefers dogma over critical thinking.

That said, the massive tsunami of BS currently polluting the planet comes mainly from the right, and from religious fundies. Immature, feces-tossing, overweight and undereducated, they are the new red threat.

I will say the fox news division is a little better at delivering the news. The pundits or spin artists have no intention of delivering the facts their goal is to tell you how to think. Why people listen to shows who's purpose is brain washing is beyond me.

"No its been show again and again the right knows how a Economy works "

I dont know about that. When Obama took office in Jan 2009, the econnomy was in a freefall. At that time he reps had the oval office for 20 of the previous 28 years, and had control of congress for 14 of the previous 16 years.

Explain that one.

Not that I think the dems are any better, at best you can say the reps are less aweful, but "the right knows how a Economy works" no. Not in actual practice.

"But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.'' "

And if you don't think Democrats are clueless about the economy, look at what Obama did after he took office!

What you don't want to admit is that the biggest problem Democrats have with our "free-market" economy is that they don't BELIEVE in one. To them our markets exist for them to take as much from as possible, and redistribute it into areas that they DO care about.

Your right wing talking points fail again. Sorry, its just not how it all happened. The Dems took congress in Jan 2007. The reps had it the previous 14 years. These mortgages were out there LONG before anything the dems did, or voted on , or failed to vote on went in to effect. You act like they came in to office, voted on all this legislation, and sold millions of bad mortgages in a year before the housing collapse started. Dont be a fool. These loans were out there for years already.

Open your eyes, not everything wrong is the dems fault,, they simply haven't had the power. Clearly, "the buck stops here" isnt in the reps party mentality. Yes, we had the white house for 20 of the previous 28 years and congress for 14 of the previous 16, but ALL the problems are caused by the dems and their overwhelming minority of power.

You didn't even read the article. At all. Not a single line. It doesn't matter who has the technical "majority" in Congress when the entire Senate refuses to vote on something! I can't believe you're THAT ignorant.

I'm done wasting time with you. Liberals never admit when the other side has a point, and you're no different. I would ask you to look at the fundamental changes made to the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act by the Clinton administration, but you're too busy sitting there with your hands clamped over your ears going "la la la I can't hear you" like the child you are.

Glad your done wasting time. This means you have no comeback to the points I made... And since we know you cant admit any of our issues are the fault of the party that has been in control for the vast majority of modern times, there isnt anything else to say. Clearly we live on different planets.

Without taking any side at all, I simply say that the reps have been in charge of the white house, and congress most of the time and you cant even get past the part where you assume I must be some nutty liberal. Its a far and valid point, and you cant deny any of it and you know it. Get some perspective man and try to see past your own sheltered life.

And again, this was a discussion about IDEOLOGY, but you keep bringing up parties.

quote: Without taking any side at all, I simply say that the reps have been in charge of the white house, and congress most of the time

LOL yeah and why do you think that is? Because when people vote Democrat they get Jimmy Carter and Obama! Even Clinton, who wasn't that bad of a President, ended up being a complete embarrassment and was only the second Prez in our history to go through impeachment proceedings while in office.

Your next reply better be facts and sources. Because as far as I can tell, you made NO points. Just conjecture.

You crack me up man... Where did I say "Republicans caused the housing collapse". You are so caught up in the blame game, you assume I am too. Again, all I am saying is that the reps have had all the control in the modern era, it cant all be the dems fault. In general the govt. has let us all down, in a major way. Not the reps, not the dems ALL of them, but you cant even see past your right wing blockades to a middle ground where it might possibly be that reps were in control and cant be totally free of guilt in this mess. Zero perspective, just blame blame blame. You really need to grow.

Look YOU brought up the housing collapse specifically. SOMEONE caused it. I showed you pretty damn concrete proof (and can show more) that it was Democrats who created the bubble that eventually burst. Then you just blow it off without even taking it seriously.

You gotta give me something. Throw me some kind of bone. If you can do that, then I can say "okay, it's not ALL their fault".

Sheesh, where did you learn to negotiate?

quote: reps were in control and cant be totally free of guilt in this mess

Wtf did I say they were? Stop projecting!

Dude back when Bush railroaded Congress to rammed home the first $16b bailout I sat right on here and publicly denounced that move in vivid, passionate, detail. You act like I'm above doing this, that's just not fair.

In this thread, however, you've moved the goalposts. The original discussion was about Liberalism vs. Conservatism. You're turned it into Dems vs Rep's! It was a discussion about general principles, not specific policy.

LOL Retro. Any guy with a sense of humor like that is alright with me.

Sorry things got a bit out of hand yesterday. Said some things I would like to take back. I guess we had a bit of a misunderstanding as well. I mean, you DID call us out by saying we used "grade school" reasoning or whatever. Sort of inflammatory. But still, I would buy you a beer and talk it out like men any day.

No worries man, its all good. I get as inflammatory as you, if not more so at times... The grade school thing was really more of a stab at Palin's childlike religious right supporters. You gotta admit she isn't a very bright bulb, as much as I gotta admit if you give a dem a dollar he will spend 4 and leave it for his children to figure out WTF happened.

Not offending the person but actually debating on the merits of their arguements?

That's the alternative.

Honestly the culture difference between europe and america never ceases to amaze me. You should see the dutch political debates in election time. They all include statistics and arguements, and if somebody offends anybody it's usually at the end of a long, long sentance with tons of relevant info. To be fair, that's been on the decline now for a good decade (as in with the LPF and PVV debates have become more polarized) but it's still there.

Since it's basically a slow news time we've been getting lots of info about the american (pre)elections here. The most frightening to me are the commercials. None of them contain any usefull information, only how bad the other guy is and what outright disaster it would be if they where elected. In ours, every commercial of every party (we have around 10-11) Is about the merits of that party, and what that party will do for you. And the people know each party will have to compromise to rule (though to which extent is often debated).

And political debates... yours aren't debates. Those are tournaments for the title of best question dodger. More direct insults. And honestly, completly insane ideas (newt wants to build a permanent moon base by 2020?! lol!). All in the name of scoring "points", whatever the hell those might elude to.

It is NOT human nature to conflict. It's human nature to compete. There's a HUGE difference. An Analogy: If there are 2 slices of pie and each of us want one, I am going to compete for the biggest, but i won't deny you pie even if i can take both, nor will i object if you win the biggest. To conflict is to take both for yourself and let the other starve if you can and otherwise find ways to do so.

Beliving it's human nature to conflict is exactly what your media is trying to achieve. I know because our media is doing exactly the same, polarizing left and right. And why do they try? Because of the oldest trick in the book.

Divide And Conquer. I've got no idea who'd be behind it, but it's a classic textbook example of divide and conquer.

I'd worry reclaimer. If you're willing to say "just relax, imagine the alternative", then they've got you. There's no such thing as "the" alternative. There are alternatives to alternatives yknow.

quote: Honestly the culture difference between europe and america never ceases to amaze me.

I'm sort of a history buff, so maybe using Europe as an example isn't the way to go on this. If you really think about it. :)

Cultural differences aside, Europeans don't seem to have very diametrically apposed parties to choose from. They have Socialism Lite, Socialism, and downright Communism to choose from. People who get called "Far Right" in Europe would be viewed as Liberals in America. True Conservatism just does NOT exist in Europe. Hell it's barely existing here, but hopefully will make a comeback.

quote: The most frightening to me are the commercials. None of them contain any usefull information, only how bad the other guy is and what outright disaster it would be if they where elected.

NOBODY runs negative adds in Europe? Hmmm..interesting.

Well get ready, cause you guys are about to see the most negative campaign in history. Obama has nearly a billion dollars saved up to slander whoever his opponent is. His record on things he's done has been so bad, he's going to HAVE to go negative on the Republican candidate. He can't really say "I've done this, don't you want more?"

quote: I'd worry reclaimer. If you're willing to say "just relax, imagine the alternative", then they've got you. There's no such thing as "the" alternative. There are alternatives to alternatives yknow.

I was just being glib. Nobody's "got me". We're just a very angry country right now. I would love to come together, just not under 4 more years of this guy.

My question to anyone that votes Republican is why? This question really bothers Democrats as we cannot understand why anyone would do so. I know I am may be asking for much, but could you please give an answer without mentioning the other side?

For instance, I vote Democrat because they tend to look after the poor, middle class, and the lower upper class by trying to provide us with health care and attempt to rebalance the tax burden so those that work for their money pay a lower percentage than those that do not. They also tend to believe in global warming, not going alone during a war if possible, and compassion.

The above is just a few examples of why I would vote for them. The above examples also, for the most part, affect me directly and not in a vague way (the wars part would be the exception probably).

Whenever I have asked the question in the past, I could not get a Republican to tell me the reasons why they would vote for their party in terms of what their party is doing instead of what they don't like about the other party. I really think it is disgusting when a Republican says "Obamacare" or "out of control spending." Can you guys just give some good examples of what your party is doing to help YOU out?

Folks, this is not football. We cannot have blind favoratism for our "teams" just because we grew up with them or whatnot. We need to have reasons when we vote. And those reasons cannot be for revenge or just because we don't want the other party in power.

YOU REALLY think there are those that have a REASON to be on one side or the other?That is exactly my point as to hy do we need to point and make jokes at the "other side of the aisle".It's so booring and I hate to watch it.

I for one do not vote anymore, because of1 - politicans lie2 - they take bribs - call it waht you want it's a bribe!3 - all they do in office is "vote along party lines", Try and keep their job, not vote as the ones that voted them in want - WHY? because they vote along part lines or as the money given to them tells them to vote4 - I hate the Dems vs Reps system that we have and will not "label" myself as either, and don't all me indepenta either!5- our govt could get so much more done if ther wasn't this infighting against the "other side".

To bad you feel the need to be linked to one of these crazy groups.

Do you also sho up at rallys and wave flgs with poeples names on them?These flag wavers are all fools that think the person can do something about anything!Their politicans they can't think for themselves, let alone run this country.

It's far better to vote than not to. Don't get me wrong, I think that plenty of Democrats are horrible legislators/leaders.

One thing you won't see is Democrats trying to spit on Republican Congress members and use racial slurs like they did during one of the health care protests that was held a few days prior to the final vote. That is a start.

No I don't go to rallies.

I do find it beyond hilarious that not one Republican can tell me why they vote Republican without being negative. So there are no reasons to vote Republican but only reasons to vote against Democrats?

quote: Can you guys just give some good examples of what your party is doing to help YOU out?

Sigh..typical Democrat. That's why we're in this mess. You vote for the party that promises YOU the most stuff, at the expense of someone else. But it's okay because that other guy is (insert rich, evil, different) so he deserves it for keeping you down.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

So you have no reason to vote for Republicans? So you vote for the party that will do the least for you and hurt you the most?

I see the Democrats keeping government out of my business way more than Republicans. Republicans try to limit health care, how I use my health care, they refuse to give equal rights to homosexuals, and the whole time they spit on the Bible (through their actions) while claiming they follow it more than others.

Dude, just give me a reason on how the Republicans will help YOU out. It's really not that hard. Don't "Republican" the answer and talk about something else.

quote: So you vote for the party that will do the least for you and hurt you the most?

Why would you contort what he quoted from Alexis de Tocqueville? Where is the disconnect?

You would have to assume the gov't is here to help you. Because the gov't cares about you and only you. That gov't creates and gives you a job, but only asks for its "fair share" of taxes in return. That the gov't is protecting you from the meanies -- you know, those who decided they wanted to make a profit even though BHO told them it wasn't time yet. If that's how you see, then you see incorrectly.

And all the comments after my post answering why vote republican is what our problem is.ONE side poking at the other.Can't even anser the question with out slipping down to the 5 year old level and telling us how bad the other side is!!!

It's very 5 year old stuff, and yet the educated of our country just keep doing it!

WHY PICK A SIDE???? That is the real question.

Both of them are lying money taking scum, only out to keep their office so that they can live the good life and get the "free" benefits that they voted for themsleves!

The fact that there can't be an election without the two sides telling us how the other can't do any right.

I WOULD vote for the person that didn't have a commercial on evey other other one, TV or radio, that didn't tell me how bad his opponent is, that WAN'T REP or DEM, and just "hoped" to get elected by what he stands for and how, without lying, he'll help the people - but that is a just a dream that will never happen

quote: And all the comments after my post answering why vote republican is what our problem is. ONE side poking at the other.

What ARE you getting on about? Is there a reason your Engrish [yes, deliberately mis-spelled] is so abominable?

And yet you babble about 5 year olds and the uneducated? Their English is better than yours. So you complain?

Beyond that, you start by saying how bad those meanies are, the Republicans, but then conclude that the problem is "ONE side poking at the other." What the sam-hell do you think you're doing? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Do you seriously expect to carry on an intelligible conversation? Or do you simply want to regurgitate the Kool-Aid you've obviously been hooked up to (via IV drip, no less).

Bugs Bunny is more believable than you. No? [Btw, when the time comes ... take "the red pill". No need to thank me.]

This isn't a formal stage.I don't have time to go back and reread for comprehension typically. I do it on the fly... Sometimes my Engrish does come out quite poorly, because I am distracted because of work. Regardless, the message while muddled is quite understandable, so why don't you stop wasting time and actually respond to the parts you do understand.

He odviously sees both sides are scum... so he isn't poking at one side or another. He seems to equally dispise both sides.

quote: Folks, this is not football. We cannot have blind favoratism for our "teams" just because we grew up with them or whatnot.

That is very funny comment coming in the same post as:

quote: My question to anyone that votes Republican is why? This question really bothers Democrats as we cannot understand why anyone would do so. I know I am may be asking for much, but could you please give an answer without mentioning the other side?

and following this:

quote: A Republican will take an idea and look at it from a grade school point of view and ask why this and that but never care to get an answer or clarify their opinion with real facts.

I'll take a stab here

quote: Can you guys just give some good examples of what your party is doing to help YOU out?

Many people don't really think its the purpose of government to explicitly help themselves as much as possible. Or even the role of Government to step in whenever it might be helpful.

Some people think government should only be involved whenever it must be involved... when all other reasonable avenues are unfeasible.

For example, you talk about the Democratic party wanting to provide "healthcare" to people. The majority of proposals seem to center around removing middle earners choice about purchasing healthcare and stealing from high earners to pay for additional healthcare for individuals.

Left out of this discussion is that the federal government spent more than 25% of its budget in 2010 on healthcare! Yes that's right, the Federal Government alone spent more than 1 billion dollars on healthcare related items (Medicare, Medicade, VA, Health and Human Services, Medical Research Grants, etc, etc, etc). This of course ignores the additional money forgone in taxes for private spending on healthcare and charity healthcare. Yet we should spend -more- on healthcare?

Personally, I'm going to vote for the Candidate that reflects my personal values the most. The US Government's current tax system takes in approx 3 billion each year. (Up to 4 billion could be collected, but tax breaks mostly to middle and lower income individuals in the form of mortgage interests, personal deductions, etc amount to hundreds of millions each year. Maybe people ought to remember this when they talk about "helping" the middle class) Current spending levels of ~4 billion clearly can not be maintained. I would never take a LOAN to provide for my neighbor. (Consider this, if you make 75,000 dollars a year, spend 100,000 dollars a year, and have debt of 300,000 dollars... would you take additional loans?)

The first candidate that promises to RAISE taxes and LOWER spending will get my full support. In the mean time, if it was me in the position of the Federal Government, I would LOWER spending first. Given that all candidates are going to RAISE spending, I will have to vote for the candidates I feel will RAISE spending the least.

I'm still waiting for one freaking reason to vote Republican. Is it so hard? And your assessment is way off. Republicans are for way more intrusion than Democrats. This is another talking point from Fox News.

Jesus Christ you really are that stupid aren't you? The guy answered your question politely, comprehensively, and eloquently. And when it gets to you, it's like it hit a brick wall of stupid.

Please go back to 4Chan or wherever you got here from. You just do not have the intelligence or maturity to be talking about this topic. You seriously cannot grasp that voting isn't about what politicians can "do" for us!?"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country"

If you need a reason to vote for someone you're too stupid to do any research on their beliefs and history.

You're just looking for the next handout. Admit it and move on. If I told you Mitt Romney would give you a personal check for $2,000 because you're a nice guy and you had reason to believe it you'd vote for him. If I told you he had moral values or that he will be able to turn the economy around by doing x, y, or z...you'd ignore it and say "you didn't give me a reason to vote republican". Enjoy the hope and change...it sure did well for everyone before. *roll eyes*

I guess you are the epitome of stupid since that is your candidate and you have no reason that you can give (without looking stupid) for voting for them.

Wow, I just found the paradox that kills Republican robots. I will make sure to use this in the future. So people that vote for Republicans are actually not voting for a candidate but maybe against the other one just for spite or some uneducated reason? I'm guessing because I can't tell at the moment.

Sigmatau, if you can't see that voting for a candidate that most closely repersents your personal value system as a reason to vote "Republician", I don't think your in the position to be insulting others mental capacities.

While I vote neither Republician or Democratic per se, I can at least admit that some people in this world will find the social "conservatism" esponsed by many members of the Republician party as aligning closely with thier personal values. (This is an example of why someone would vote for the "Republician" stereotype you hold)

Your consistent denial of this self-evident truth of the world, well frankly, makes you seem little more than a selfish thief who wonders why people would see some of "preferences" of the Democratic party as negative.

So no reason huh? Republicans are not conservatives. I'm not sure who came up with that idea.

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how exactly Republicans "represents your personal value system". That was my original question. So you are for taking other people's rights away that you don't agree with, increasing taxes for the working class but lowering taxes for the upper class, and trying their hardest to pollute the world is your reason?

quote: So no reason huh? Republicans are not conservatives. I'm not sure who came up with that idea.

They're a lot more Conservative than Democrats. I can actually name Conservative Republicans. Can you give me even ONE example of a Democrat who isn't a Liberal? Okay maybe Evan Bayh, but that's pretty much it.

There was once a term used for a sensible blue-blooded Democrat; "Reagan Democrat". Sadly, those don't exist anymore. The radical far-left movement has taken over the Democrat party. And that's not just me saying it, everyone is.

Anyway you sound like a 12 year old who asks questions about things he can't possibly understand the answers to. People have told you 10 times why they vote Republican, and you keep saying "but why tell me tell me bro" like an idiot.

quote: So you are for taking other people's rights away that you don't agree with, increasing taxes for the working class but lowering taxes for the upper class

That's an absolute absurd attack. You aren't even TRYING now. Even Liberals are probably reading your posts with some embarrassment.

Oh, and let me tell you how insane your reason is to vote for Republicans. You and another more flamboyant poster stated basically for "smaller government."

The Republicans are part of the government. So that is a nice paradox you wove yourself into. Also, the Republicans love big government when it comes to what they want. They want a bigger military, larger boarder patrol (even though Obama has increased it dramatically), and as much welfare for corporations. If that is not big government, then I don't know what is.

The Democrats have been passing consumer protection laws that prevent corporations from unfairly feeding of the poor and/or uneducated. If that is too intrusive for you then I can't help you.